 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM Wolfgang 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM Like EG, I can't see where you think that was a personal attack. Or, rather, I can see where someone of the mindset that you persistently display would view that as a personal attack! Like EG, I despair of you, I really do. You ask for logical responses, you ask to be persuaded... then you dismiss everything offered, on one pretext or another. Can you answer the question that so many can't? How do you prove to the paranoid that everyone isn't out to get him? Because, from where I am standing (&, I suspect, EG, Guest Jon, Wolfgang, & many others) you are the paranoid. How do we disturb the internal logic of your arguments? No-one seems to have managed it so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM Oh alright then - for a bit of peace. Oooo! Roger! What I could do with that quote!! ;-) Seriously, many of the rest of us would like a "bit of peace" from this particular piece of your monomania. I know I've been quite aggressive at you over this, but it's nothing personal. Consider this - my impression is that most of the respondents in this thread find your argument to be as unpleasantly insistent as I've quite deliberately been towards you (it shouldn't take 4 repetitions of a question to get an answer out of someone as free with his opinions as you, should it?!). Why should we listen to you, when you won't listen to us? Why is your almost lone opinion worth more than our several & many? I acknowledge your rather belated answer, but it is so uninformative as to be worthless. It seems to me that you still try to slide away from the question that is being asked of you. You answered the "Have you", but you didn't answer the implicit "why?" You can't answer "why" with "yes". So? Regards, R |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:19 PM No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order. Sorry, Xander, no it isn't (normally). For it to be an order pre-supposes that the 'orderer' has the authority to enforce either obedience or punishment. In most cases on Mudcat, this is not true. I, personally, wish Roger would "shut the f#ck up" on the subject of censorship, because (in the words of Flanders & Swann) he's a thundering thumping boar.* I don't have the authority to enforce that desire, therefore I am expressing an opinion, not giving an order. And since not even Roger has suggested (as far as I remember) that he has been censored on this particular subject, the Clones (who do have the power to 'punish', by deletion at least) obviously haven't given an "instruction" either. R *On the subject of censorship, be it noted! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM Roger, Roger... Wolfgang's last post was the friendliest you have had in a long time. Yet you chose to misread and belittle it ("I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one "). Well done - you just shat all over Wolfgang's goodwill. Your vehemence in pursuing your goals is exemplary. Your ability to describe your objectives clearly is woefully inadequate. Your ability to recognise friend from foe is - well, nonexistent. You have some points to make. We think we see them through your wordage, and some even agree and try to rephrase them to help. What do you do? Flail at those who try to help you. Sod it. You're a lost cause mate, I'm out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM When you have shot the messenger so full of all sorts of arrows that they look like a porcupine and there is no point in joining in and trying to find fresh places to shoot them - you could just leave them to die....... Or if they still struggle on to deliver their message - you may as well listen to the message and give it some serious thought - and possibly wonder why some many arrows are being fired in order to prevent you from doing this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM Shambles it's qutie simple really. The issues over the levels of censorhip, people working anonymously, whether policies are applied evenly, etc. are perhaps worthy of discussion. The way you go about it and the premis you use to base your arguments on are oten illogical and leads one to think that your interest is not in discussing matters in a straightforward manner but you are using the issues for other reasons. If on the other hand, rather than discuss the matter, you wish to voice a complaint, you have a source you have yet to try. As far as I see it Shambles, it's a bit like an equation. If you credit Max on one side you need the credit on the other side to balance it out. Let's go for: "The posts made by people invited to the forum by Max are being dealt with by Joe Offer who Max appointed and the volunteers also appointed by Max in a system created by Max are causing problems and the system Max created is being abused by the people appointed by Max" Why can't you say that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:44 PM Never try to teach a cat to sing. It's a waste of your time and it irritates the cat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM Wolfgang I agree with whatever it was that you might of just said... I think that I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one - that are dressed-up to sound as if they were not this. And made in the pretence of making some contribution to the debate. Whilst carefully avoiding addressing any of the issues - which remain to be addressed - however you may see my shortcomings in debating them. If I have inferred the wrong thing from your answer as - I suspect others may have also - perhaps you could clarify it for us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:17 PM Someone said the world needs people like Roger 'sticking to his guns', etc. Probably true, but find a fuckin' issue that is worthy of this type of approach. Fight world hunger, guns, no guns, abortion on demand, no abortion on demand. On a scale of one to ten, this fucking issue don't rate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM Shambles, you also have not read my 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM post, at least not the part in which I dealt with your question before you started repeating it ad nauseam. The question as you have asked it is nonsensical, but since you have insisted I have given you a short response. I was not at all surprised you have made the wrong inference from my response as MMario has pointed out already. Either your debating tactic or your thinking is very muddled. Basically, you have an interesting point which deserves debate and what you wish for is not obvious nonsense. It is not your opinion as such leading to responses you do not like as you seem to think, it is the way you argue for your ideas: (1) You're repeating often verbatim the same questions and remarks as if you wouldn't listen at all to people you pretend to be in a conversation with. That either implicitely tells the others that they are dumb for they obviously need information repeated or in my eyes comes close to the behaviour of a kid asking for the umptenth time for something without listening to any response. (2) You exaggerate the problem, the consequences, the evil-mindedness of your opponents and the responses you get in a way that makes them unrecognisable to others. Your Niemöller quote which you don't seem to understand is but one example. (3) You try to trick people into false analogies and wrong conclusions. If you say that then..If you accept that then....Don't you think that....In close to none of these examples your premisses are clear. In most instances, my impression is that what you say is not what you want to imply. That makes a response extremely difficult, for if one responds to what you have said (and ignore what you may have meant) you invariably understand it wrong and try the next wrong inference. (4) Your responses when you are asked are wishy-washy and seldom to the point. From my experience with you in threads and PMs I can say that you rarely do respond at all to points made (without an explicit question) and not always to explicit questions. You restate your point with slightly different words unless you even copy and paste. My impression is: "Is he thinking he's in a conversation or what?" Your response often gives no indication that you have read or understood what someone else has said. That parody of a debate sometimes gives me the hard to resist urge just to make fun of you for that seems like the only sane way to react. If I had not written this serious post I may have written a parody of Roger with the task of controlling entrance tickets: "Here's my ticket" "Let us first agree that we are both humans with equal rights who have no..." "Don't you want to see my ticket?" "...other way but unprejudiced communication on an equal basis..." "OK, I'll go in then" "...founded on the bill of rights and the UN convention..." Sometimes I even think that you damage your cause more than any control and censorship freak could dream of. "Shut up" in this context is a well meant advice of a friendly person to stop you doing more damage to your cause than you have already done. Or at least, give it sometimes a break of two weeks or so. After such a break you may post more reasonable and clearly and people may be more willing to listen to the good sides. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:42 AM Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 AM That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away? You're doing it again, Roger- (well, I suppose Michael Howard is getting away with doing it over and over again...). You've been a member here long enough to know this isn't what happens. Most people here give others a chance to have their say, and even debate with them rationally (as many are doing here with you, for heaven's sake!) The only time (as a rule) people get annoyed here is when arguments are being repeated ad nauseam and the responses aren't listened to or heeded. Tell me Roger, why, do you think, are you a voice crying in the wilderness here? Don't you think others would be coming in on your side to support you, if all you say is valid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:26 AM Not sure that it should matter much – but am I angry? …...If so who with and why? I am probably not angry but I am a little sad. However I do think that there is anger. And this anger and the judgement and intolerance that follows - comes from an unrealistic view of what a public forum can be. The idea that threads and their titles - started by the public looking for information will clearly match the idea that Joe or say Wolfgang considers as the most informative title or not be dublicated – is unrealistic. That Joe, Wolfgang and others may see our forum as a site for research which needs an efficient means of finding information is a problem - as it is described as a discussion forum and most people never have seen or used our forum in this limited way. The result of this thinking is that (amongst other things) Joe and his volunteers have slowly taken control over what a thread is called. Probably nothing too sinister an intent - in this but why must this change always be imposed without the originators knowledge? Could it always be the case in future - that no change is made to a thread title unless the originator is first contacted and agrees to the proposed change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:56 AM *note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions. That word has a sinister sound to it. Do you mean like in hair braids or telephones or like in Max's Angels? But is there any real need for any of these volunteers to be anonymous when anonymous posting has been such a contentious issue? Pretending that any form of anonymous posting will be ever thought to be generally favourable is hardly realistic - is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 AM Nice one, Roger. (By the way, you share the same name with the father of France Gall, who wrote her hit "Poupee de cire, poupee de son" with which she won Eurovision back in my wasted youth). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:16 AM Youth Is Wasted On The Young If the truth be told Experience is wasted on the old And youth is wasted on the young When you have your youth You have no finer weapon than the truth And you wield it like a sword When youth is gone You need all your strength just to go on And the truth now cuts you to the bone If the truth be told, Experience is wasted on the old And youth is wasted on the young Which one is right The one certain, keen and ready for the fight? Or the one, unsure, who knows the price to pay Who are the fools The ones who want to change all the rules? Or the ones, who have changed them once before? If the truth be told, Experience is wasted on the old And youth is wasted on the young Roger Gall 1997 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:11 AM Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval. Again the comforting 'spin'. Are you asking us to acept that approval to delete - is FIRST subject to approval? For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right? Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street? Yes - Wolfgang has already told it. But think about what you look like you are saying here. That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away? It is my view that those who wish to be driving where there is only one direction alowed - go out and start one. For that is NOT this site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:47 PM From Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man": "...there's always a place for the angry young man With his fist in the air and his head in the sand And he's never been able to learn from mistakes So he can't understand why his heart always breaks And his honor is pure and his courage is well And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM Shambles remember the old adage and STOP DIGGING. Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM correct - there is no control over what is posted here EXCEPT that once posted it is subject to the whim of Max.* *note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street? "Gee, there's a lot of people getting it wrong today- and no matter how much I tell them they're wrong they keep shouting back at me- and some of them have abused me!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:44 PM Unless ever post is previewed, NO they have no control over what gets posted. If I try to make the case that someone does nefarious things to sheep, that post will stand until it is deleted. Jaysus. That ain't rocket science. What the hell point are YOU trying to make? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site. Do you accept that whatever they may subsequently do - they first have to accept that they have no control over what posters choose to post to a forum - that is open to the public.....? Unless they write all the posts themselves... So in fact you could say that as what we post is up to us - we have the control (at least over our own posting)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM Shambles - his reply to your question is that they are not ALWAYS right. (Which is the question you asked) It is not an either or situation. You are twisting your own words as well as people's responses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM Sorry Wolfgang - I did see the post but didn't realise it was in answer to this. For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right So you wouldn't say that this was right. So we agree that it is wrong when they do this then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others? no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM Roger, Please start a site. I will visit there. Stay here, but start one too. Would love it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours. (Shambles) Huh? Don't you read my posts? Look up my 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 post. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that. I did say that I would fail.......... But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here. Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty? For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:54 PM You can start a forum at MSN. Free and you would do the moderation--if any. I too would love to know how it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here. it is similar to the right of free speech in the US. Everyone has the right to publicly express their opinions - however - in a privatly owned establishment - even one that caters to the public - the owners and/or management may completly legally prohibit certain language or expel clients/customers/visitors whose speech they do no concur with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM Roger you just defined anarchy. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM Oh you definitely need to start a forum!!! I gotta' see this! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:38 PM Wolfgang - is this Max's 'volunteer application form? I suspect I will fail......But you did ask me some questions - so I must answer. - People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do? First accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Leave them both alone (or link them) so that posters would be aware that such a problem is possible to enable them to avoid it in the future There is time to show the respect of first informing the originators about any proposed action (where this is possible by PMs). - Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do? Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Inform the originator, explain and ask if they wish me to remove it. - Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do? Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Ignore them and let them die a natural death. Imposing your judgement, deleting or closing threads - without the knowledge of the poster - is a BIG DEAL. Where it is possible NOT to do this - it should always be preferred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship. I have more than demonstrated here that I am well able to ignore many personal attacks and resist responding in kind and if I can do it so can others. So much of the justification for all this current censorship is not required However, I was pointing out - in an answer to another post that stated that apolgies were currently given and on this current set-up -(with anonymous volunteers imposing their judgement upon the cotributions of others) - that I had not received an apology - not that really expected or wished for this. My objection to these personal attacks and the incitement to others to do this - coming publicly from our volunteers - is the establishment and acceptance of the double standard and the poor example this is setting. When the whole justification for all these anonymous volunteers is to protect us from personal attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM I'm sure Max could handle all of it alone if he were so inclined to do so and spent all of his time on this website. He doesn't......as you might have noticed. His good friend Jeff ahs been a major aide to him but Jeff too has a life. I assume that we all have a life Roger, even you and I. So Max, very early on, got Joe to do some of the stufffor him and was obviously happy enough with the results because all these years later, Joe is still here and doing the job Max requested. Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval. The other point is that to my knowledge, NO CLONE HAS VOLUNTEERED for the job. They have all been asked to help and agreed. Again, to the best of my knowledge, not a one has volunteered. If Max finds this acceptable, why can't you? Or does it really matter what Max finds acceptable? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM One advantage of living in a world of your own, is that everybody knows you there. Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: PoppaGator Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM I can't believe I just wasted x-number of minutes of my life reading through this crap. I've checked into it once or twice over the past couple of months and each time, I have regretted having done so. Well, the information about three-minute eggs and ostriches was mildly amusing and almost useful. The rest of it is all hot air, as far as I'm concerned. I'm generally opposed to censorship, and my answer to those who find something objectionable is for them to simply not buy/read/listen/tune-in to whatever it is that they dislike. Would that I could heed my own advice! It's discussions like this one that I'd rather not see, and I take responsibility for myself to ignore them. When I have a moment of weakness, like I did today, I blame no one but myself for my loss of resolve. I've never had a problem beng "censored" here. There have been a few isolated occasions when I've been glad to see some inadvertant posting of mine get deleted (like when I recently started a new thread twice). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum. This is refreshing. Yes of course that is sensible. But ironically as it stands - if the libellious comment was copy pasted to a music thread - it would be permitted to stay - according to Joe' latest version of his rules. But this brings us to the level of cenorship. If it was limited to the above - there is surely no reason why the decision to delete or not could easily be made by Max alone? Our volunteers could be then confined to changes requested by posters to their own posts and to bringing any more questionable contribution to Max's attention - for him to decide on possible editing action. This brings us to Mudcat's version of Catch 22. When criticised - the level of censorship is defended by those who wish to do it - as not very high. But when it is suggested that if it is SO low that Max alone could deal with any imposed deletions - suddenly the level of problems increase to a level that he could not deal with alone. Perhaps it is time for some folk to be a little honest and admit that they just like imposing their judgement and deleting the contributions of others and that is why they volunteer to do it?
No, Roger, we do not encourage or permit the posting of libelous music information. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM Really, Shambles, you must tell it Max. He should know that the volunteers abuse their position. Please tell us then what his answer was. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship. Why grizzle then? Or is the case that you do in fact want censorship, but from named individuals who state their reasoning/rules they follow? Reading through your many posts on the subject I find contradictions, and I am not sure which of the two above is the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement. Always? Why? On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary. 'That old double standard has me in its spell' I have yet to be aplogised to for the personal attacks mounted on me and for the incitement for others to do this - from our volunteers. .........All I have seen so far are excuses from them and for them. I am sorry but we are all human (yes even me). But it is generally accepted that more is expected from those who are placed or volunteer for special positions of trust. Especially those who would feel qualified to judge others. Most of the cracking' you refer to, has come because those who feel qualified to judge us - consider that they are above judgement! I don't make this generally accepted rule but I doubt if you would so easily excuse a court judge or Government official who 'cracked' and started to abuse their position but still wished to continue in office? If our forum is to continue - we must all be responsible for our own actions at all times. I don't see that - on a public discussion forum where we are all invited to contribute as equals - there can be one expectation for one and not the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM It's amazing. I had no idea the internet was available on the planet Praumoq. Do you get broadband service there Roger or is that not available yet? Please go and start a forum. I am just dying to know how it all turns out for you. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM ...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's? It is not - but it is less confusing. Would you not agree that with children - one arbitary authority (right or wrong) will easier to accept and be less confusing to the chilren than more than one - all making different arbitary decisions? If this parent delgates authority to a nanny etc - would they be wise to subject their children to a whole different range of abitary authority? I suggest that when you feel that you must delegate on sensitive issues like imposed censorship - it is wise not to set loose a whole load of anonymous individuals all making their own arbitary judgements in the dark and taking action based on this no matter how well-meaning the intention is. If it must be done - should it not be open, fair and have a clear objective? Is that really the case now?
Of course, we cannot submit their actions to review by the entire forum - What we delete is material that we do not want seen in a public forum, for one reason or another. Joe, Jeff, and Max conduct the review of the actions of the clones. Jeff and I consult with each other several times a day, and we consult with Max when he's available. But no, we're not about to ask permission of the entire Forum every time we do some sort of editing. That's not how life works. Ordinarily, people are trusted to do the work they do, and are not required to ask permission from people outside their work structure. The Clones report to Jeff and Joe, and ultimately Max. Jeff and Joe report to Max. That's our structure. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-) Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM Be more specific, Shambles: - People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do? - Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do? - Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do? Wolfgang |